coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in the city of Donetsk, Ukraine.
5.  At the material time the applicant and four other shareholders had equal shares in the private company A. (“the company”). In 1993 the company bought certain premises from a private company in a building previously owned by the State.
6.  In November 1993 the shareholders decided to liquidate the company and the liquidation procedure was initiated. On 27 March 1995 the liquidation procedure was completed and the company was removed from the relevant companies' register. As a result of the distribution of the company's property, the applicant acquired the title to the aforesaid premises (“the disputed property”). However, according to the applicant's submissions, he did not register his ownership of them.
7.  On 14 February 2000 Mrs K. and her minor children, the heirs of one of the shareholders of the company, instituted proceedings in the Kyivsky District Court of Donetsk against the applicant, challenging his title to the disputed property. The other shareholders and the Donetsk Regional Department of the State Property Fund were involved in the proceedings as third parties. The applicant lodged a counterclaim, seeking recognition of his title to the disputed property.
8.  On 20 September 2000 the court ordered the attachment of the disputed premises.
9. In May 2004 the applicant lodged a claim against the State Property Fund before the Kyivsky District Court of Donetsk alleging that the latter had sold a part of the premises situated in the same building to a private company. The applicant challenged the sales contract alleging that these premises formed part of the disputed property. Initially the court considered the claim within the proceedings which were already pending. By a ruling of 14 June 2004 the court disjoined the claim into separate proceedings.
10.  On 14 June 2004 the Kyivsky District Court of Donetsk found for Mrs K. It held, in particular, that the shareholders had failed to comply with the relevant legal procedure for the company's liquidation and the distribution of its property. In consequence, the court declared the related shareholders' decisions null and void, and redistributed the company's property. The court acknowledged Mrs K.'s title to the disputed property apart from the premises in question (see paragraph 9 above). The court awarded the applicant and the other shareholders 64,056[1] Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH) each, to be paid by Mrs K. By the same ruling the court lifted the premises' attachment.
11.  On 16 August 2004 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal upheld that judgment.
12. On 21 September 2004 the applicant appealed in cassation. On 21 August 2007 the Kyiv City Court of Appeal, acting as a court of cassation, dismissed the applicant's appeal.
4.  The applicant was born in 1932 and lives in Lutsk, Ukraine.
5.  By judgment of 14 December 1998 the Lutsk City Court partitioned a property inheritance between the applicant's mother and her relatives.
6.  On 26 August 1999 the applicant's mother gifted the applicant part of an apartment in Lutsk awarded to her by the above-mentioned judgment.
7.  In September 1999 the applicant's mother instituted proceedings in the Lutsk City Court against Z.V., M.V. and three other persons (her relatives), seeking their eviction from her apartment.
8.  On 18 December 1999 the applicant's mother died. On 12 January 2000 the applicant was admitted to the proceedings as her next of kin.
9.  In February 2000 Z.V. and M.V. lodged a counterclaim, seeking to have the contract of 26 August 1999 declared void; subsequently they sought invalidation of the applicant's mother's will which was in favour of the applicant. They also sought to have property rights over the relevant parts of the disputed apartment acknowledged as theirs.
10.  On 29 January 2003 the court found for the applicant and ordered the defendants to vacate the apartment. It dismissed the counterclaim by Z.V. and M.V.
11.  The defendants appealed but due to the shortcomings of their appeal the proceedings were protracted for four months.
12.  On 13 August 2003 the Volyn Regional Court of Appeal, having found, inter alia, that the lower court had failed to examine crucial pieces of evidence, set aside that judgment and remitted the case for fresh examination.
13.  On 5 September 2003 the applicant appealed in cassation against the latter decision; on 12 October 2006 the Supreme Court of Ukraine dismissed her appeal.
14.  Of almost thirty hearings held between September 1999 and 12 October 2006 seven were adjourned due to the defendants' failure to appear before the court. Within this period three forensic examinations were held staying the proceedings in total for one year and four months.
15.  In November 2006 the Lutsk City Court took over the case.
16.  From 15 March to 23 July 2007 the proceedings were stayed as the additional forensic examination had been ordered.
17.  On 20 December 2007 the Lutsk City Court declared the contract of 26 August 1999 and the applicant's mother's will void. It dismissed the applicant's request to have the defendants evicted.
18.  Of the eleven hearings held by the first instance court one was adjourned due to the applicant's and two due to the defendants' failure to appear before the court.
19.  On 2 April and 7 October 2008 the Volyn Regional Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Ukraine dismissed the applicant's appeals and upheld the judgment.
4.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in the city of Odessa, Ukraine.
5.  On 22 May 1992 the applicant was dismissed.
6.  On 20 August 1992 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Suvorovsky District Court of Odessa (“the District Court”) against her former employer, seeking recovery of salary arrears and other payments owed to her, and compensation for failure to observe the correct procedure for her dismissal.
7.  On 28 October 1992 the proceedings in the case were suspended pending the outcome of another set of proceedings concerning the applicant's reinstatement.
8.  The next hearing was scheduled for 10 June 2002.
9.  On 27 June 2002 the District Court found against the applicant.
10.  On 30 July 2002 the same court declared her appeal inadmissible owing to its procedural shortcomings.
11.  On 7 November 2002 the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) quashed that ruling and declared the appeal admissible.
12.  On 2 June 2003 the Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 27 June 2002 and referred the case back for fresh consideration. On the same date the court adopted a separate ruling, drawing the attention of the President of the District Court to the length of the proceedings in question.
13.  On 6 July 2004 the District Court again found against the applicant.
14.  On 7 December 2004 the Court of Appeal quashed that judgment and rendered a new one, finding in part for the applicant. It awarded the applicant 29,483,71 Ukrainian hryvnias (UAH, about 4,082 euros) in salary arrears and other payments and UAH 2,000 (about 277 euros) in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. On the same date the court adopted another separate ruling, drawing the attention of the President of the District Court to the length of the proceedings in question.
15.  The applicant appealed in cassation against the judgment of 7 December 2004. On 13 July 2007 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal, sitting as a cassation court, upheld that judgment.
4.  The applicant was born in 1975 and is currently serving his sentence in Makeyevka.
5.  On 16 September 1997 the applicant confessed to the murder of Mrs R. On 17 September 1997 he was arrested. On the same day he was questioned. The applicant was remanded in custody.
6.  On 18 September 1997 he was charged with the murder.
7.  On 10 December 1997 the pre-trial investigation was terminated and the case was assigned to the Novoazovsky Court for consideration.
8.  On 22 July 1998 the Novoazovsky Court convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to thirteen years' imprisonment.
9.  On 25 August 1998 that judgment was quashed by the Donetsk Regional Court[1], which remitted the case for additional pre-trial examination.
10.  On 21 November 1998 the pre-trial investigation was completed and the case was sent to the court.
11.  On 31 December 1999 the Novoazovsky Court convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to thirteen years' imprisonment.
12.  On 13 June 2000 that judgment was quashed by the Donetsk Regional Court. The case was remitted for additional pre-trial investigation.
13.  On 18 August 2000 the pre-trial investigation was completed.
14.  On 15 May 2001 the Novoazovsky Court convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to thirteen years' imprisonment.
15.  On 20 November 2001 the Donetsk Regional Court of Appeal (“the court of appeal”) quashed the judgment and ordered additional pre-trial investigation. By the same ruling the court of appeal lifted the preventive measure of detention pending trial. The applicant gave an undertaking not to abscond and was released.
16.  On 4 July 2002 the Supreme Court quashed the ruling of 20 November 2001 and remitted the case to the court of appeal for fresh consideration.
17.  On 19 November 2002 the court of appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal and upheld the judgment of 15 May 2001. The applicant was then arrested.
18.  On 20 November 2003 the Supreme Court upheld the ruling of 19 November 2002 and the judgment of 15 May 2001.
5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Simferopol.
6.  On 6 September 2005 the Court found a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 in the applicant's case having established the lack of an effective remedy against the decision of 1 December 1998 by the first-instance court ordering the applicant's administrative arrest and detention (see Gurepka v. Ukraine, no. 61406/00, §§ 59-62, 6 September 2005).
7.  After the above judgment of the Court became final, the applicant was paid the awarded amount of non-pecuniary damage.
8.  On 4 January, 20 February and 2 October 2006, the applicant sent requests for review of the decision of 1 December 1998 to the President of the Supreme Court but to no avail.
9.  On 8 May 2003 the applicant and two other individuals instituted proceedings in the Kievsky District Court against the Krymenergo Power Supply Company for cutting off the electricity supply to the apartment in which the plaintiffs had an office.
10.  On 27 April 2005 the court found in part for the applicant and ordered the defendant to restore the electricity supply. The judgment was not appealed against and became final. According to the applicant it was enforced on 14 October 2005.
11.  On 3 March 2004 the applicant failed to appear before the Simferopolsky District Court in the civil proceedings in which he was participating as a representative of the plaintiff. The same day, in the applicant's absence, the court registry drew up a report on the administrative offence of contempt of the court on account of the applicant's failure to appear for the hearing which demonstrated his disrespect to the court.
12.  On 19 April 2004 the Zheleznodorozhny District Court found the applicant guilty of contempt of court under Article 185-3 of the Code on Administrative Offences and fined him 136 hryvnias (UAH, around 20 euros (EUR) at the material time). The applicant was not present at the hearing. In the court's decision it was mentioned that the applicant had been duly informed of the court's hearing. According to the applicant, he was not summoned to the above hearing.
13.  On 8 August 2004 the applicant requested the President of the Crimea Court of Appeal to review the decision of 19 April 2004.
14.  By a letter of 30 August 2004, the Acting President of the Crimea Court of Appeal informed the applicant that there were no grounds for review of his case, since the decision of 19 April 2004 had been well-founded and there had been no procedural violations.
4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in the city of Kharkiv.
5.  On 2 October 2000 the applicant instituted proceedings in the Kyivsky District Court of Kharkiv (“the District Court”) against his former employer seeking various payments owed to him upon his retirement, including compensation for belated salary payments.
6.  On 10 October 2000 the case was transferred to another court for consideration but on 14 August 2001 it was sent back to the District Court.
7.  On 16 October 2002 the District Court found in part for the applicant. Both parties appealed against that judgment.
8.  In the period from February 2003 to March 2004 the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal, having taken over the case, remitted it back to the District Court on several occasions in view of the procedural flaws.
9.  On 30 March 2004, the Kharkiv Regional Court of Appeal amended the judgment of 16 October 2002, increasing the amount awarded to the applicant. On the same date the court adopted a separate ruling, drawing the attention of the President of the District Court to the numerous shortcomings in the way the judge of the first instance court had examined the case. According to the Court of Appeal, these shortcomings had caused delays in the proceedings.
10.  In April 2004 the applicant and the defendant lodged their cassation appeals before the Supreme Court. On 24 May 2006 it upheld the decisions taken by the lower courts.
6.  The applicant was born in 1957 and is currently detained in Garsten Prison.
7.  On 22 December 1993 the applicant was convicted of murder by the Vienna Regional Criminal Court, sitting as an assize court, and sentenced to life imprisonment.
8.  On 18 October 2002 the applicant filed an objection (Einspruch) against the local electoral register (Wählerverzeichnis) with the Local Electoral Authority (Gemeindewahlbehörde), complaining that his name had not been entered in the register although he met the general conditions such as minimum age, citizenship and residence in the community. He alleged that his exclusion from the electoral register under section 22 of the National Assembly Election Act (Nationalratswahlordnung) was unlawful as this provision was unconstitutional. He invoked, inter alia, Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
9.  The Local Electoral Authority dismissed the applicant's objection on 30 October 2002 and, referring to section 22 of the National Assembly Election Act, refused to enter the applicant's name in the electoral register. On the same day the applicant appealed.
10.  On 7 November 2002 the District Electoral Authority (Bezirkswahl-behörde) dismissed the appeal. It found that the Local Electoral Authority had acted correctly in refusing to enter the applicant's name in the electoral register and that it was not the task of these authorities to express a position on the alleged unconstitutionality of the law applied.
11.  On an unspecified date the applicant requested the Constitutional Court to grant him legal aid to lodge a complaint with that court against the District Electoral Authority's decision.
12.  On 3 December 2003 the Constitutional Court refused to grant legal aid as it found that the applicant's complaint lacked any prospect of success. It referred in that connection to a previous decision of 27 November 2003 in which it had found that section 22 of the National Assembly Election Act was not unconstitutional.
8.  The applicants were born in 1972, 1982, 1985, 1978 and 1983 respectively and currently live in Sweden.
9.  The applicants fled Iran and entered Turkey illegally on various dates in 2005 and 2006.
10.  On various dates between 19 April 2005 and 3 October 2006, the applicants appeared at the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“the UNHCR”) in Turkey, which recognised their refugee status and issued them with refugee certificates on 24 August 2007.
11.  On unspecified dates the applicants lodged asylum applications with the Turkish authorities and sought residence permits. They were questioned twice by police officers from the Aliens Department on various dates in November 2006 for an assessment of their asylum request. During the questioning the applicants stated that they had been members of different illegal organisations and had been involved in anti-regime activities in Iran. They had either been detained on numerous occasions or sentenced to imprisonment and/or punishment by lashing. They all maintained that they would face a personal risk of ill-treatment or death if they were to be returned to Iran.
12.  The applicants were permitted to live in Van pending the asylum proceedings and were allowed to leave the city boundaries subject to specific permission. In this connection one of the applicants (Mostaba Naderani Vatanpur) was issued with a permit allowing him to travel to Ankara between 22 and 31 August 2007 for various resettlement interviews.
13.  On an unspecified date the applicants' asylum request was rejected by the authorities on the ground that they had not complied with the relevant criteria. In respect of the fourth applicant, the interview forms indicated that the authorities did not find the applicant's replies credible and considered that he had left his country for higher economic standards.
14.  On an unspecified date the applicants were apprehended and held at the Van Security Directorate for an undetermined period before they were notified of the deportation orders on 22 August 2007 at 12.30 p.m. The deportation orders bear the signatures of the applicants and a translator. The applicants were deported to Iraq on the same day.
15.   Upon their arrival in Iraq the applicants claimed to have been held in detention for about a month. They then had lived in Northern Iraq for some five months before they were resettled in Sweden on 10 February 2008.
5.  The applicant was born in 1958 and is currently being held in the Kırklareli Foreigners' Admission and Accommodation Centre.
6.  In 1985 the applicant joined the People's Mojahedin Organisation in Iran (“the PMOI”, also known as the “Mojahedin-e-Khalq Organization”).
7.  In 1986 he arrived in Iraq. He lived in Al-Ashraf camp, where PMOI members were accommodated in Iraq, until he left the organisation in 2003, because he disagreed with the PMOI's goals and methods. After leaving the PMOI, he went to the Temporary Interview and Protection Facility (“TIPF”), a camp created by the United States forces in Iraq. This facility was subsequently named the Ashraf Refugee Camp (“ARC”).
8.  On 5 May 2006, after being interviewed, the applicant was recognised as a refugee by the UNHCR Headquarters in Geneva during his stay in Iraq.
9.  On an unspecified date the applicant arrived in Turkey with a false passport.
10.  On 1 June 2008 the applicant was arrested by the Turkish security forces while attempting to leave for the island of Kos, in Greece, from the port of Bodrum, with a false passport.
11.  In his statements to the Turkish police, the applicant stated that he had fled from the regime in Iran and arrived in Iraq, where he was recognised as a refugee by the UNHCR. He did not mention that he was a former member of the PMOI. He then described the circumstances in which he had arrived in Turkey and had attempted to leave for Greece. The applicant noted that he had contacted the UNHCR branch office in Ankara and that he had been told that he had to wait. He did not feel able to wait and attempted to leave Turkey illegally.
12.  On 2 June 2008 the UNHCR branch office sent a letter to the Ministry of the Interior informing the latter that the applicant had been recognised as a refugee under their mandate.
13.  On an unspecified date the UNHCR branch office asked the national authorities to grant the applicant access to the asylum procedure in Turkey. This request was rejected in view of the fact that the applicant's presence in Turkey constituted a threat to national security given his membership of the PMOI.
14.  Following his detention in police custody, a detention order was made in respect of the applicant and he was transferred to Muğla prison as charges were brought against him for illegal entry into Turkey and falsifying identity documents.
15.  On 1 August 2008 the applicant was transferred to the city of Van in eastern Turkey, apparently with a view to deporting him to Iran.
16.  On invocation of the interim measure under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, the applicant was transferred to the Kırklareli Foreigners' Admission and Accommodation Centre.
4.  The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Warszawa.
5.  On 29 March 1995 the applicant brought an action for division of matrimonial property.
6.  On 25 October 1995 the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) held the first hearing.
7.  Between October 1995 and March 2007 the Warsaw District Court scheduled approximately 25 hearings. At least eight of them were adjourned – on three occasions because of the absence of a witness, on two occasions because of the illness of the judge, on one occasion because the court had to deal with the request of R.W., the applicant's former husband, to appoint a legal-aid lawyer and on two occasions due to the large number of documents and motions filed by the parties. Three expert's opinions evaluating the market value of the property were delivered during this period.
8.  On 23 March 2007 the Warsaw District Court decided on the equitable distribution of property between the applicant and R.W. The applicant was granted, in particular, the ownership of the common apartment together with the furniture and was obliged to pay R.W. a certain amount of money.
9.  On 4 May 2007 the applicant was served with the written reasoning for the decision.
10.  On 18 May 2007 the applicant appealed against the impugned decision.
11.  On 3 December 2007 the Warsaw District Court sent the case file to the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy).
12.  On 11 March and 24 June 2008 the Warsaw Regional Court held hearings.
13.  On 8 July 2008 the Warsaw Regional Court amended the Warsaw District Court's decision in respect of the amount of money that the applicant was obliged to pay R.W. and upheld the remainder of the decision.
14.  On 24 September 2008 the applicant was served with the written reasoning for the decision.
15.  On 24 November 2008 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal against the Warsaw Regional Court's decision.
16.  On 9 June 2009 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) refused to examine the applicant's cassation appeal.
17.  On 23 May 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Warsaw Regional Court under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”). The applicant sought a ruling that the length of the proceedings before the Warsaw District Court had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN).
18.  On 27 July 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the applicant's complaint. The court held that the 2004 Act had taken full legal effect on the date of its entry into force, i.e. 17 September 2004. It acknowledged that there had been some periods of inactivity for which the Warsaw District Court had been responsible. However, it found that in the period after 17 September 2004 there had been no inactivity or undue delay on the part of the authorities. It accordingly held that there had been no breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time during the relevant part of the proceedings.